Local government reforms: ‘Bigger authorities aren’t always better, for voters or for Labour’s chances’

The imminent publication of the English devolution white paper will offer us a sense of the incoming government’s proposed remedy to the disempowerment of vast swathes of the country.

Devolution to combined authority mayors remains an incomplete project, with southern England and non-urban areas lagging behind our northern and city peers. The white paper should explain how devolution becomes a nationwide endeavour.

As the leader of Hertsmere – a borough council in Hertfordshire – I can testify that our people and businesses want their local leaders to be more empowered to take the decisions that will drive growth, prosperity, new homes and societal wellbeing.

This desire is surely as great as it was in the industrial areas of northern England before Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram and others were elected.

Navigating the reforms

However, the Budget posited an unexpected element, which did not feature in Labour’s manifesto. It raised the possibility of local government reorganisation to bring about “simpler structures that make sense for local areas” and “efficiency savings”.

Such a reorganisation was not deemed to be required in either Cambridgeshire & Peterborough or the East Midlands prior to their mayoralties being instigated.

Previous local government reorganisations have generally involved mergers between several district and county councils to create new unitary councils, often covering the footprint of a county. Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy research finds the evidence for the benefits of such reorganisation to be inconclusive.

Despite this, the District Councils’ Network, of which I am the finance spokesperson, and which represents the 164 English district councils covering a combined population of 20 million, is pragmatic and keen to engage meaningfully with the Government on reform.

READ MORE: Assisted dying vote tracker – how does each Labour MP plan to vote on bill?

I am a firm believer that we must continually remind ourselves that local government is more than lines on maps and that this is the right time to have a debate on the right way forwards. But I’m equally clear that any reorganisation will not be easy and will be stacked with new risks. Foremost among those risks is its potential to take our eyes off the real prize – namely local delivery of our new government’s national growth mission.

Reorganisation creates turbulence. Those who’ve been through the process before almost universally say it’s proved a distraction from doing the day job. Every council leader and officer I speak to is keen to work with the Government on being the local drivers of its change programme – but the clear and present danger is that organisational turbulence will make us less effective in this role.

Only if done well can reorganisation be helpful. I’d suggest that we apply three tests to it: Does it strengthen local democracy? Does it modernise public services? And does it improve financial sustainability?

Answering these questions

On the question of democracy, it would be an unfortunate irony (and intellectually incoherent) if the Government’s devolution programme resulted in power shifting away from the people and local places. Local government needs to remain genuinely local. District councils are the principal authorities closest to communities.

We cover tightly-knit localised areas – a market town, or a cathedral city for instance – and are easily identifiable. In contrast, it’s getting on for a three-hour drive between the furthest points of North Yorkshire unitary council, set up in 2023. If we want engaged councillors to be equipped to respond to local needs, it’s vital that they cover localised wards and are familiar with all areas in their council’s boundaries.

With regards to the modernisation test, it’s not necessarily the case that bigger means better. If we’re serious about a reorganisation that improves public service delivery in the future, then let’s look at the boundaries of councils alongside those of the NHS, police and other public bodies. If there are synergies to be made the greatest rewards are surely here. This should be part and parcel of wider public service reform.  A piecemeal approach would be at odds with everything else the government is trying to achieve.

On finance, there’s one massive elephant in the room – social care. The huge growth in demand for social care services leads them to take up an ever-greater proportion of local government resources. In practice, this leads unitary councils to divert spending to social care from housing, regeneration, planning, environment, waste collection and leisure. These are the local services which directly contribute to growth and new housing, and prevent physical and mental ill health – the Government’s biggest priority areas.

READ MORE: Welsh Labour figures attempt to reassure farmers after protests outside conference

My own council’s size creates benefits not just for our local communities but for Great Britain PLC. Hertsmere owns and operates Elstree Films Studios, the birthplace of Star Wars, Indiana Jones and many other iconic British productions. We attracted Universal Comcast to build its SKY Elstree complex here and supported the BBC Elstree Centre, home to EastEnders, to stay here when it was under threat from large developers.

None of this would have happened without intensive, ongoing nurturing and cultivation by councillors and officers. This hyper-local set of relationships give us an unrivalled understanding of the needs of our film and TV sector. And I’m proud to say that it was a Labour administration in Hertsmere which had the foresight to first bring the then under-threat film studios into council ownership 25 years ago.

Speaking of Labour, it would be a supreme political irony if a Labour Government swept away district councils just as they have become an increasingly Labour part of the local government landscape. There are more Labour district council leaders than Conservative ones, and we’re not far behind them with regard to councillors. The opposite is true on county councils.

In Hertfordshire, the new tide of red across the districts has led to a renaissance of CLPs and has resulted in a new generation of Labour activists. This would not be the case if local representation is telescoped out to more remote unitaries, with fewer councillors.

For both the future of Labour and the future of local places, I urge caution on the reorganisation of councils. Nobody close to this debate is against change. But it needs to be the right type of change. There is a debate to be had about how we rethink local democracy and local services to meet the challenges of the coming decades. But we must take care not to diminish local places in the process. Devolution should empower local people, not disempower them. I am keen to work with the Government to make sure that happens.

SIGN UP: Get the best daily roundup and analysis of Labour news and comment in our newsletter

For more from LabourList, follow us on  Threads, Bluesky, X, Facebook,  Instagram or WhatsApp.

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected]. 
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning. 
• DONATE: If you value our work, please donate to become one of our supporters here and help sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or content, email [email protected].